Seattle Personal Injury Attorney Chris Davis tells Seattle Weekly: “We need process servers.”

The Seattle Weekly just published an article about an over-zealous process server named Ron Belec.  Apparently, Mr. Belec has received complaints from people he has served with legal process.  The complaints stem from Mr. Belec’s persistent efforts (the people quoted in the article claim it is harassment) to track people down and make sure they receive the legal papers directed to them.

But hold on now.  When I was interviewed by the Seattle Weekly reporter before this story came out, I told her that the legal system needs process servers.  And that being served with papers actually protects the rights of the person being served.  This is because our Constitution states that every person has the right to be notified and an opportunity to respond when any legal charges are being made against us.  Here’s the portion of the article:

“Despite the bad reputation of process servers (which probably wasn’t helped by last year’s Seth Rogen/Evan Goldberg movie Pineapple Express) they’re an essential component of the civil court system, says Chris Davis, a Seattle-based personal injury attorney and member of the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association’s Board of Governors. Davis says servers actually protect the people who are receiving the legal notices. “Our constitution basically says that a person has a right to be notified and the opportunity to appear and respond to the charges, whether those are criminal charges or civil charges.”

In some cases, Davis says, people attempt to avoid service, hoping that eventually the statute of limitations will run out. Under state law, for example, you have three years to sue someone for damages after a car accident. Even if you don’t get the papers into someone’s hands, it’s still possible to win a judgment against them, but in order to do that, you have to show you’ve done everything possible to serve them.”

I was also asked whether it was possible to serve someone with legal papers (e.g., summons, subpoena, etc.) using email.  I responded:

“The biggest potential blow to both companies would be the digitization of process service itself. Chris Davis says he doesn’t expect to see that anytime soon. It would be very difficult to prove that someone actually received and viewed an e-mail.”

I also told the reporter that it may be possible to show service by email, it’s just that not everyone has an email, or checks it regularly.  As an attorney, I must be absolutely certain that the person who I’m trying to serve papers with actually received those papers.  That’s why personal service is essential.  I can’t take the risk that the person being served says later after the statute of limitations expires that he was never served.  If service is attempted by email, I can just imagine the person saying he didn’t check his email for months as a way to avoid service and get the case against him dismissed.